Skip to main content

About your Search

20121222
20121230
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)
to forge an agreement that would grow our economy and shrink the deficit, a balanced plan that would cut spending in a responsible way but also ask wealthy americans to pay more and protect our middle-class and everyone striving to get into the middle class. i want to get this done. it is the right thing to do for our families, businesses, and our economy, but the hour for immediate action is here. it is now. we are at the point where in four days every american's tax rates are scheduled to go up by law. every americans' paychecks will get considerably smaller. that would be the wrong thing to do for our economy, it would be bad for middle-class families, and it would be bad for businesses that depend on family spending. congress can prevent it if they act right now. i just had a good and constructive discussion here at the white house with leadership about how to prevent the tax hike on the middle class. i am optimistic we may reach an agreement that can pass both houses in time. senators reid and mcconnell are working on such an agreement as we speak, but if an agreement is not reached
and services among consumers, they are chronically bad at creating a surplus between deficit regions. remember -- if that comes first, suddenly the money lender who later becomes a banker who later becomes wall street plays a hugely significant role in this process. the banker is the conduct of that -- conduit of that recycling mechanism. when they get an increase in proportion as the result of their mediation of that process. the banker is the same thing as a clothes maker. suddenly, there are two things that must have been. 1 -- society will demand that banks are not allowed to go to the wall. then bankers are affectively blanche, free money for themselves. and the whole mechanism breaks down in 2008. in the eurozone, we made a huge error in europe of binding together these economies. this is not the first time these things that happened. it happened in the united states of america. you have disparate economies in the united states of america that are bound together monetarily. what is it that keeps the united states together? you had a great expression in the 1930 -- you had a great depress
trillion in deficit reduction. we need to stabilize the debt and work it down is a package of about $4 trillion over ten years. here we are today, december 19, and these law changes which i referenced earlier, the end of the bush era tax cuts, the dreaded sequester, across the board cuts of $1.2 trillion in spending will begin to take effect the first of next year. the good news is the white house and republicans have been trading proposals and at least yesterday appeared to be moving closer together. i would have much preferred that they would be talking about a bigger package than they've discussed but nonetheless to reach a package that would resolve some of these issues would be an important step forward and i think help promote certainty that would be important to our economy. on the revenue side of the equation, i just want to remind you what it's taken in the past to balance the budget. we hear talk on average revenue is in the 18% of g.d.p. range n. getting back to average you will should be sufficient. the problem with that is we have never balanced the budget in the last 50 y
our deficit under control, to avoid tax cuts -- to avoid tax hikes on the middle-class. and to make sure we can spur jobs and economic growth. a balanced proposal that cuts spending, but also ask the wealthiest americans to pay more, a proposal that will strengthen the middle class over the long haul, and our economy over the long haul. in the course of these negotiations, i offered to compromise with republicans in congress. i met them halfway on taxes and more than halfway on spending. today, i am still willing to get a comprehensive package done. i still believe that reducing our deficit is the right thing to do for the long-term health of our economy and the confidence of our businesses. i remain committed to working towards that goal, whether it happens all at once, or whether it happens in several different steps. but in 10 days, we face a deadline. in 10 days, under current law, tax rates are scheduled to rise on most americans. and even though democrats and republicans are arguing about whether those rates should go up for the wealthiest individuals, all of us, every single
their deficit and we cannot, the world will switch to euros. there is a tweet here -- guest: the cbo is supposed to be a political, but it cannot be too alarmist. if we go over the cliff, we are looking on january 1, some of this is already milton. about $600 million -- $650 billion in spending cuts and tax increases. that is about 4% of gdp. that is an enormous negative stimulus. a detraction from demand. that would surely be a deep recession. the cbo relies on simulation models that did not take into consideration investor sentiment, the reaction of consumers, and so forth that they wholly lose confidence in their government. if we go over the cliff and stay there, people will start to conclude that washington cannot manage its affairs. all bets are off on economic modeling. it is impossible to say what happened that other than it would be very negative. host: one piece that you actually did right has this headline -- take the idea of a recession next year. with the perspective of everything else going on, when a recession look like? guest: it depends on how we get there. if we have a fiscal c
the special mission had to rely on a militia, with skill deficits. overall, the board found the security systems and procedures were implemented properly by american personnel. ecosystem's themselves and the libyan response fell short on the night of the attacks -- those systems themselves and the libyan response fell short on the night of the attacks. their decision to depart the special mission without ambassador stevens kim after repeated efforts of many u.s. security agents -- came after manytepeated efforts of u.s. security agents. benghazi, tripoli and washington coordinated effectively with each other on the night of the attacks. the interagency response was timely and appropriate. but there was not enough time for u.s. military forces to have made a difference. having said that, it is not reasonable nor feasible to tether u.s. forces at the ready to respond to protect every high risk post in the world. we have found that there was no immediate tactical warning of the september 11 attacks. if there was a knowledge gap in the intelligence community's en understanding of extremist m
in infrastructure and dealing with the deficits were more -- in a more balanced way. it was about what our obligations are to each other. it was about big things. those are very, very big things. i will say that, for all of the critique about whether our campaign was about big things or not, the preoccupations of people who write about that -- and i used to do that for a living -- i don't try to separate myself -- many of them are my best friends -- there is an awful lot of horse race coverage of this presidential race. there is such a preoccupation with who will win and who will lose and so little real interest in what the implications are. >> we were talking about pulling. >> public polling is so voluminous now. any to kids with an abacus can do a poll of the corner grocery store and some national news are in position will cover it as if it is news. and maybe the billion tommy pulled him out today. -- the billy and tommy poll came out today. it can be done sound yet they produce results that were wholly different than what we knew to be the case. yet it would drive coverage. the gallup p
run for years over a trillion dollar deficits and it is time for us to do a big fiscal deal in washington that really drives down the trajectory of our debt. we have to do it. and then come in the senate, we have to get back to regular budgeting. i serve on the senate budget committee. since i have been! even before that, three years since we have any budget in t senate. -- since i have been there, even before that, three years since we have done a budget in the senate. >> new hampshire is a great model. >> absolutely. this to me is the number one overriding priority. and i want to be part of making sure that we finally start getting on the right fiscal track. it is not easy. but there is no easy answer to all of this. and programs like social security and medicare, we have to start talking about how we reform them. because, for example, medicare goes bankrupt in 2024. that is not that far off for people in this room who rely on it. or social security in 2033. we have to have those discussions right now to strethen america because nobody wants to see us see what happened ieu
to reduce the deficit and then double it, do you think the american electorate was cognizant of the fact that obama doubled in it instead of cutting it in half? why don't the american people care about the debt of the united states of america? guest: i do think they care about it. the economy is the number-one issue. guess what? then it comes down to things like jobs. then you come to the debt. it is not that americans are out of touch with the idea that the government is spending more money than we are taking in. there is lots of concern about whether or not the chinese is holding our debt. so, americans are very concerned and that the question is how you go about addressing this problem -- are very concerned. the question is how you go about addressing this problem. president obama and the democrats are saying we have a combined problem both in terms of not sufficient taxation and also we have to have cuts in spending. we have to do the cuts in spending over time because you do not want to endanger a very fragile economy. to respond directly to your question, why do i think the elector
to people in united states of america who are in need of help, or help reduce the deficit that was testified to be the greatest national security threat to the united states of america. it is a matter of priorities. i appreciate the very noble -- i emphasize the word noble -- effort to help people who are in harm's also way in various parts of the world. my colleague from florida mentioned somalia. certainly in vietnam we tried to do the noble things. we're in a different financial reality. in the absence of a national security interest in the congo, i am afraid that sequestration will force us to retract even though we may wish to the contrary. i yield back the remainder of my time. >> a couple of questions. sequestration is not only obama's, but also our responsibility. i believe we voted for it. >> i did not vote for it. >> we talked about this whole issue. it has been suggested that perhaps -- >> $80 million. is that more or less correct? [indiscernible] >> we will hear that in a few moments. if that is correct, i would point out that this really is a national security issue for america
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)